tv [untitled] June 14, 2013 7:30am-8:01am PDT
just going to be the (inaudible) left there and in turn, the person that has the right to that property on that, we paid 3 million dollars, and of our tax payer's money, for nothing. and to... they originally planned to stop the boring in china town and it makes much more sense to keep it that way and none of the extensive work on both forest street or on to the procidio will continue for at least 15 years so i strongly suggest not to do the dig of the pagota palace and leave north beach alone for the time being. >> stewart bloom, followed by greg giber and then mark gruberg. >> madam chairman and ladies and gentlemen. i live in north beach and i reflected previous speaker about not digging. but the reason that i am here is this, is that i have been
testified at city hall since 1972, i was part of the first zoning and height limit initiative put on the ballot back then, the proposition two. and then in all of this time i had never come across the situation where a board could make history by pleasing everybody. and everybody could be happy and like the lotto get a 70 million dollar bonus and that is take the drilling head apart and dismantle it at washington street, and remove it with the football-size field and the length of the football field and the digging equipment that you mentioned. and everybody wins, everybody gets exactly what they want and this is good for a decision by your city board. and everybody leaves in the past and a compromise and which meant that nobody left happy. you can do it.
you can safety everyone's desire and all of the reasons not to stop in china town can satisfy your desire not to dig. >> thank you. >> greg geiber and mark gruber. >> i think that there is a serious problem in your due diligence before warning the central subway contract to (inaudible) tpc. all of your rules require the contract has to be dealt so in life and most responsible bidder, responsibility is the issue, we know that the contractors have a high propensity that end up busting the budgets. >> and what your board and the examiner did not know is just how bad it could be with tc, p.
sadly he said that he was unaware that he over ran a san francisco airport project by over 50 percent before the city attorney took legal action. now, it is not your job to do due diligence, it is your job to see that your director does due diligence, how good of a job is done by the director or his staff to not tell you about the airport over run, did he carefully examine the financials and the filings and if he did, did he tell you or discover and tell you about, tc, p's la and are there problems with boston's big dig? and the list goes on and because of the short coming, i have submitted for the record. tcerebral palsy discussions of these issues and you stop to do the due diligence and you have to raise questions about the confidence and your confidence in the class projections.
and your contying entcy is narrow. cut what is not necessary, i live in north beach, but have no plan for such to come, and only a plan to have a plan. >> north beach is not necessary, for phase two. and nor is it a prerequisite. >> thank you. >> one last sentence. >> we have to limit everybody to two minutes or is not fair. >> thank you. mark gruberg united taxi cab workers. a couple of years back there was a simple and powerful idea this was at the time that the taxi apps were first making the presence known in the industry. give the public access to all cabs that were single cell
phone app and the agency and discarded this idea at that time that the cab company emerging had that happen we might not be facing the mess that we have today. this idea has come back and with much greater urgency and now that we have all of these rogue services out there. it was immediately watered down so that there could be multiple apps but all of the cabs would have to appear on those apps. now, even that idea has been discarded in favor of a purely voluntary system in which there will be multiple apps that the company will not have to join and that the apps can veto the company and drivers from participating and we could expect at least at 6 or 7 different apps at this time and so, this simple idea which
would be an indispensable tool for us to compete against all of these other services, and tell the public that there is just one place and you can go and you can have access to the whole fleet and that idea is gone as of today or last week when it was discarded and this is a tremendous disservice to the industry, to the drivers, to this agency, to the city, and it really needs to be reviewed and you know, rethought. because, without a tool like this to compete, we are at their mersy, thank you. >> thank you. >> robert winer, jewel, osterberg and mary mcchoir. >> the stake holder, one thing that concerns me is the possibility that muni bus
service will be on a saturday schedule during the summer. you have to keep in mind that the tourists are coming into san francisco and the people have to simply get to work. and now, with the gross inconvenience when it was tried twice before, and you also that there is a new development now, the shuttle vans have sprung up and because muni service is so atrocious, and you want to create more shuttle service, you implement the summer schedule and we are going to really wreck this transportation system. now in respect to the unregulated cars, there is a potential for someone to be kidnapped and someone to be robbed. by someone who is not a license or someone who is not screened. now, what is it going to take for this board to realize it? maybe it is some member of the board is kidnapped and robbed, i don't know. but the thing about it is that this is very serious, and mta is clearly out of control and
spiraling downward and the report that we submitted before the board of supervisors and scott weiner shows is that the service is absolutely atrocious and you will have to do something and it does not (inaudible) you have to get administrative operations in order they have been out of order for i don't know how many years. and stop spending the money on muni projects like a transit project instead of paying consultants and putting in more buses and drivers. >> thank you. >> osterberg, and mary mcchoir and howard wong. >> i am here today to speak to you because i love north beach. i have lived at what we are now calling ground zero, for 48 years. and is this unneeded project
goes ahead as planned, my quality of life will take another nose dive and i strongly believe that it will end as a place to live. the two residential buildings at the intersection, were both build in 1907. a magnificent russian church adorned the site of the old theater building that is going to be demolished, before the 1906 earthquake. and of course, washington square one of the three oldest parks is across columbus. >> i am aware that this project is also way over budget. and this is a great interest to it me, because i sold my car and i am a frequent bus rider. i believe that the money should be spent on improving the
neglected bus system. please don't allow this important part of our famous neighborhood to be made unlivable and the community destroyed forever. >> thank you. >> i don't know if you read it or not but i would like to call your attention to the article by a person that is particularly (inaudible) who discussing and one of the quotes is i want to put san francisco taxi drivers out of business and something tells me that he did not lift the cool-aid he is another one of the venture capitalists but it is just almost, i mean the subtext around all of this is
they have told us and we like the lift because of the people like us and she was white and i will not say anything more about that. i will, i would like to address the new leap buses which is definitely... it is (inaudible) for bus riders essentially. and the best quote that i read is does it make a stop for fried chicken and sustain able popsicles, they are either connected because when you read the terms of the contract which i don't have time to do, it is identical to the contract and it absolves the buzz company from the responsibility because they are saying the same thing. one app, i mean that you have to stop and you can't let this continue, and you have to stop it somewhere, soon. or i mean that to disrupt this
text is that it breaks the structures and disrupts the lives and these people are not motivated to improve the service and they are motivated by money and by greed and it is like, i guess if you go to starbucks you get a cup of coffee and the stuff at the top is creamy and really good but you need the coffee to support that. that is what muni is and taxis are and if those are... >> thank you... >> thank you. >> howard wong? bary toronto and devon sibernail and that is the last person. >> howard wong, muni's membership includes the architects and engineer and protect managers who have decades of experience in over seing the city project and budgets. and we have concluded based on sfmta documents, that the central subway is significantly
over budget. but the looming fiscal crisis appears to be concealed to force tax payers into the future debt load, possibly revenue bonds or to 2014 bond measure. the independent project management over site consultants report of may 15th, 2013, indicates that project costs will fall to 65 million dollars. only 4 percent of the project costs. the fta is also concerned that the central subway project has not addressed decreased schedule contingencies since october of 2012, and say that muni's.com analysis reviews even larger cost over runs and funds are likely three percent or less, the largest construction contract is 120
million over budget, the large he felt contractor perini as the aggressive change over contractor who i have worked with over the years, they are good, but they are aggressive. and major construction of deep tunneling and excavation has not even started. the fta in 2009, recommended a 20 percent contingency and projected a cost of 2 billion dollars at 80 percent confidence. which is equal to about 27 percent. or 421 million dollars. and the independence and... >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. wong. >> bary followed by devon silver nail and those are the last papers that people have turned in as speaker cards. >> good afternoon, barry toronto and i missed maybe some of the announcements but i am very much concerned about you
allowing ads to involve some sort of hate speech and i hope that you put the $5,000 as the apartide, i urge you to do that, if you don't, i think that i consider some of the decision making anti-semetic, i am sorry to say that, if you know the importance of israel to allow the jewish people then i think that you would consider that move just as well. and even supervisor camp os, and i think that you should hold a hearing of what kind of advertising you should accept, yes, first amendment rights are important but at the same time, money is not important than alienation and creating desession among the members of the san francisco community. and the next one is regarding the app services, there is a
great submission and i advice you to take a look at to the cpc and the san francisco cab drivers association and explains the real motives of these people and it is all about wanting to make the law, they don't care and when the airport did its crack down, they said, oh,, come to us, and we will fight them. and it is not about following any laws, or caring about any laws or fees, or permits that are required. it is a very important issue and i wish that you would get more involved, and i also wish that you would get your legal staff to send a letter to all of the insurance companies that insurance these private vehicles, reminding them that these cars are taking money as commercial operation and call them donations but no, they actually are calling themself and making income for themselves and these are not donations and so i think that a letter from the city attorney to the insurance companies would say that... >> thank you.
>> thank you. >> devon silver nail and anet block. those are the last two people who have turned in a speaker card. >> hi, board members and thanks for allowing me to speak. i am with the san francisco pedestrian safety advisory committee. i represent district nine. and so, this is not in my district and i am here to support a safer polk street idea and i think that is a very valuable corridor for all users and currently as the road user myself and a pedestrian at first and a cyclist second and i feel like i have encountered sometimes hostile conditions on polk street and i just wanted to bring that to your attention and i know that you are all very aware of it. and i wanted to throw my support behind it too, thanks. >> thank you, and thank you for your service on the pedestrian safety advisory committee. >> the last person who turned in the speaker card is annette
brown. >> thank you. >> i do numbers as a living, i am a concerned citizen and i live in north beach and i have been doing budgets my entire life. the tunnel is 70 million apparently right now. the estimate. the extraction that we have the estimate is 9 million dollars. and the machines are worth 4 million dollars, and so that does not make sense to me already. so, if there are two tunnels already in place, and you are going to bore out to north beach for whatever reason, why bore out under the pagota because it is going to cost 9 million to save four it does not make sense, even my kids who are in grammar school think that those numbers don't make sense. the other is why are we going to tear up a neighborhood for no direct benefit. if there is not going to be a subway stop there, let's just not pull it out. let's just not pull the dirt
out. i am curious as to why the $70 million wants to be spent any way. phase two is approved, but yet, there is going to be an extraction tunnel to get to the phase three intended stop. so, is it that the board is trying or whoever approved this budget is trying to use funds from one project phase to fund another project phase? and is that legal? and so i i would encourage you to go back to who the budget analysts are and ask those questions of them. but the most important question that i have is why spent 9 million and rip up the neighborhood to save four million, and is it possible to back those machines back out the big tunnel? >> thank you. >> thank you, miss brown. >> madam chair that is the last person who has turned in a speaker card. >> and i don't see anyone else indicating interest in speaking.
>> thank you. >> moving on the items are considered to be routine and will be acted on as a single vote unless a member of the public wishes to have it suffered and considered separately. >> as previously announced 10.1 a has been removed from the agenda and in addition, at the request of the member of the public, 10.2 e, f, and v, have been severed. and seeing no other request, from either the staff or the board, e including e, f, and v, do i have a motion to approve the consent calendar? >> motion approved. >> second. >> all in favor, aye? >> aye. >> all right, miss boomer let's go ahead and have e, f, and v. >> so directors, these were severed at the request of a member of the public. item e and f has to do with
looking for work, but also the people who work in the buildings have off street parking and so i think that the two hour parking limit signs, because this is mainly, and else there are some new residential buildings going on and not businesses, and so, this clearly shows to me that you are only looking to make money off of people parking and not to create turnover. there are no businesses in the area. there are restaurant that are operating at night. after the meters go into effect. and this is a waste of energy, and enforcement time. to put meters in the area being proposed under eand f. >> thank you. >> members, any comments? or do i have a motion to approve? >> approve. >> second. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> >> moving on to the regular
agenda. >> item 11, approving various locations for establishment of over night parking restrictions for oversized vehicles. >> right. >> and do we have a staff presentation? >> good afternoon, madam chairman and members of the board, mr. riskin, and with the sustain able street. and this ordinance was adopted by the board of supervisors to address the negative impacts of large vehicles being warehoused on the streets in san francisco. and it is not a city-wide program, and it is only in effect where it signs are posted in the areas that are approved by you the mta board. >> this legislation continues to allow oversized vehicles to park on some san francisco
streets, but gives the mta an additional tool to address the issues related to the over night parking on the focus location specific basis, and will the oversized vehicles cause issues which is often in the near residential areas. and to refresh your memory you will know from the previous presentations but we did, a sampling of streets in san francisco, to look for these oversized vehicles, we should define as longer than 22 feet and taller than 7 feet and these have a location that we identified some of them where they are located and as you can see, they are concentrated along the east side, and as well as the west side and? along the golden gate park. and of those, there are over 450 of them that we surveyed and 51 percent of them consist
of trucks, trailers, and these trucks, trailers and buses that are left on the street. but 40 percent of them were campers. and as percentage of them we do know that there is some folks, actually living in them. and of the (inaudible) that we sampled we looked at the registration of where the vehicles are coming from and 64 percent of them, or of these large vehicles were registered to addresses in san francisco. however, only 20 percent of them were registered to addresses within a quarter mile where they are parked. so, it is very obvious that san franciscans are using the streets to warehouse their vehicles and not in their own neighborhoods basically, and so these are the vehicles that are causing a lot of the negative impacts to surround the residents in a particular
neighborhood. so, the two groups of streets that we are proposing before you, for consideration, is basically taken from the original list of locations that we have on file which is long standing locations with negative impacts and long term parking over night parking and different parts of the city. and we are choosing these two groups as the first two roll out locations. and for several reasons. one is that as i mentioned during the original list and secondly, to have a long-standing history and with preventing problems and the groupings also allowed and
facilitates the installation and logistics to group together in two areas and they help us to do our evaluation because it is the large enough sample where we decertain the certain trends and signs that are posted and they also help us do the notification because there are more concentrated instead of being geographically scattered. we do want to ask specifically point out that this program is not meant to target people who are living in campers and other vehicles. the police code. >> i am sorry, mr. yee, let me interrupt you. >> members of the public we cannot tolerate feedback like that during the meeting and if it continues we will contact the deputies and have you removed. no more comments like that. thank you. >> thank you. mr. yee. >> for several reasons, firstly, the san francisco police code already prohibts
living in vehicles. and each of these locations that we are proposing to have the signs installed are basically coincide with a lot of the areas that are currently already signed for the prohibition of the habitation of vehicles and so it will be exchanging one sign for the other. a lot of the vehicles that people are actually hab taiting in, will fall below the threshold for the dimensions that we have legislated for the board of supervisors so if someone is in a vehicle that is smaller than a 22 by seven and they will fall through the net. and we also as a mentioned previously, over half of the vehicles are not the type that people are actually are living in. we have committed ourselves to